No problem, still brings the point across.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your preferred Chinese car brand?
1920x1080 VS 1920x1200
- Thread starter techead
- Start date
No problem, still brings the point across.
SaiyanZ
Executive Member
Whats all this confusion about? Here is a simple summary:
- 16x9 screens allow you to see about 10% more horizontally compared to a 16x10 screen when gaming. This is because in games the vertical height is fixed...so instead of showing more ground and sky when using 16x10 the picture is kind of zoomed in and the edges are cut off.
- 16x10 screens allow you to see more text in windows.
- 16x9 screens allow you to see about 10% more horizontally compared to a 16x10 screen when gaming. This is because in games the vertical height is fixed...so instead of showing more ground and sky when using 16x10 the picture is kind of zoomed in and the edges are cut off.
- 16x10 screens allow you to see more text in windows.
Uhm... I'm taller than my wife. Would it be good for me to tell her she's wider?
wpswart006
Senior Member
Guess she didn't take it well? 
MadMailMan
Expert Member
Chevron
Serial breaker of phones
You do realize that 16:10 is better for gaming as most games are vert- right?
Rudimental
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,457
- Reaction score
- 2
SuperAntMD
Expert Member
I've read all of this and feel like a bear with a sore head.
WTF- surely there is an easy way to settle this?
WTF- surely there is an easy way to settle this?
Look good enough... :/
Good enough to not be like; "oh my screen is so crap I will get the other resolution now!"
RoosTa
Expert Member
I'm about to throw a spanner into the works.
Funny thing about the whole argument, is that both sides are correct.
Keeper is arguing about 3D images dynamically generated by the PC, where the ratios can be adjusted on the fly without loss of quality.
3D is a vector drawing (or triangles to be precise) with a bitmap texture applied to it and is not dependent on pixel which is why the PC can adjust the FOV without loss of quality.
A 2D example of this is Illustrator or Corel Draw using vector drawings. When you take the pen and draw it, the lines can (zoom in/out or resized) scale without loss of quality. Vectors are stored per point (or within 3D space) and drawn dynamically by the PC (rendering). The PC then translates the information to pixels.
However, for movies (and generally 2D bitmap graphics) information is stored per block (aka pixel). If you open an image in photoshop and zoom in you will clearly see the blocks. Every pixel in the bitmap was precalulated and stored within a certain format and the PC translates the pixel 1:1. Therefor it cannot scale without losing quality. Good example of the was the movie at 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200. (Or Techies' Firefox example).
Here is an example of Vector vs Bitmap:
http://www.sunilpatel.co.uk/images/TeX Help/TeX Vector vs Bitmap.jpg
So for 3D games, you will benefit having more peripheral vision (16:9), since you don't need to see more of the floor and the ceiling. However, the FOV is adjustable. The higher the FOV the wider the camera lens and the more that will be rendered in view. (Example is: Some games use FOV of 65 and some quake players use FOV 105 for more vision (even on 4:3 monitors)) Having a bigger monitor will also allow you to have a bigger FOV. Though, they had to lock the Vertical FOV to accomodate Widescreen monitors so that the image does not go out of aspect. This is the same as when you stretch a 4:3 TV program on your 16:9 TV - everyone looks fat. This is automatically adjusted by the game.
For digital movies the field of view cannot change and as long as your resolution is the same or even larger (provided that you don't scale it up) than the original source, it should display it without loss of quality.
Funny thing about the whole argument, is that both sides are correct.
Keeper is arguing about 3D images dynamically generated by the PC, where the ratios can be adjusted on the fly without loss of quality.
3D is a vector drawing (or triangles to be precise) with a bitmap texture applied to it and is not dependent on pixel which is why the PC can adjust the FOV without loss of quality.
A 2D example of this is Illustrator or Corel Draw using vector drawings. When you take the pen and draw it, the lines can (zoom in/out or resized) scale without loss of quality. Vectors are stored per point (or within 3D space) and drawn dynamically by the PC (rendering). The PC then translates the information to pixels.
However, for movies (and generally 2D bitmap graphics) information is stored per block (aka pixel). If you open an image in photoshop and zoom in you will clearly see the blocks. Every pixel in the bitmap was precalulated and stored within a certain format and the PC translates the pixel 1:1. Therefor it cannot scale without losing quality. Good example of the was the movie at 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200. (Or Techies' Firefox example).
Here is an example of Vector vs Bitmap:
http://www.sunilpatel.co.uk/images/TeX Help/TeX Vector vs Bitmap.jpg
So for 3D games, you will benefit having more peripheral vision (16:9), since you don't need to see more of the floor and the ceiling. However, the FOV is adjustable. The higher the FOV the wider the camera lens and the more that will be rendered in view. (Example is: Some games use FOV of 65 and some quake players use FOV 105 for more vision (even on 4:3 monitors)) Having a bigger monitor will also allow you to have a bigger FOV. Though, they had to lock the Vertical FOV to accomodate Widescreen monitors so that the image does not go out of aspect. This is the same as when you stretch a 4:3 TV program on your 16:9 TV - everyone looks fat. This is automatically adjusted by the game.
For digital movies the field of view cannot change and as long as your resolution is the same or even larger (provided that you don't scale it up) than the original source, it should display it without loss of quality.
Last edited:
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Well we have real-world examples of gaming, media and productivity differences between 16:9 and 16:10 so I guess you just have to look at them and decide which you prefer 
I'm fortunate to have the best of both worlds by using both 16:9 and 16:10 monitors with my PC, but if I'd have to choose I'd choose the 16:10 monitor (if only because it has a higher resolution compared to my 16:9 monitor)
I'm fortunate to have the best of both worlds by using both 16:9 and 16:10 monitors with my PC, but if I'd have to choose I'd choose the 16:10 monitor (if only because it has a higher resolution compared to my 16:9 monitor)
Last edited:
RoosTa
Expert Member
Yup, and that why I said that everyone has been correct within their own context.
genetic
Honorary Master
Agreed!
RoosTa
Expert Member
I'd say:
16:9 for gaming
16:10 for productivity
and both work well for media.
However, 16:10 1920x1200 can also display 16:9 1920x1080 resolution just fine but it wont work well the other way around
Last edited: